Reply to: Come to the office... any office!

[WTFH]

... the only reason is managers not trusting employees/contractors and thinking folks are skiving at home...

There are multiple other valid reasons, perhaps a 3 slide powerpoint would explain them - although they are mentioned in other posts in the thread.

[JustKeepSwimming]

If that's the case, that they don't care from which office you work as long as you're in an office and not at home, the only reason is managers not trusting employees/contractors and thinking folks are skiving at home.

Recent example is lloyds banking group, now wanting everyone in the office at least 2 days a week and since employees (at least the ones I know based in Scotland) were starting to kick up a fuss, I've heard now LBG are opening up local offices and technology hubs in various places so if say you are based in Glasgow, you'll have an office there and won't have to travel to Edinburgh. What's the real benefit of this? None, but managers want to see bums on seats.

There are some benefits.

Social element of work is important to companies, it helps with retention. Workers will stay longer at company when they like their colleagues. I've known many great workers who have stayed far longer than they should've because they enjoyed the place and "grass isn't always greener".

Equally there are a sizeable amount of people where being forced into an office and to socialise is in their personal interest even if they dont appreciate it.

There also some people who don't have suitable work environment at home, especially youngsters house sharing. Living and working in a bedroom isn't great. So forcing everyone to do min 2 days to justify the expense of a hub for those who can't work well at home is IMO justifiable.

[dsc]

Good employers will use the data to identify gaps (eg: how two employees are delivering the same output while spending significantly different time on these tasks) and continuously improve while bad employers will use it to manage by spreadsheet.

I wouldn't agree with this as people are different, some work faster, some slower, have different ways of achieving the same goal etc. it's not AI which you can train to do the same tulip in a specific manner.

There's a very simple way to manage if you don't want people to slack, give them tasks, deadlines (probably one of the most important elements as without that people easily loose motivation) and know what people are working on, what stoppers they have and how long things take in reality. It really isn't rocket science, but of course bums on seats are easier.

Also you need to have some level of trust towards your employees, otherwise it just becomes a slave like approach to work.

[PCTNN]

R0225180 ERP Engineer

Location Crawley/Belfast/Glasgow/Templecombe (Any Thales Site in the UK)

What's the point of being on-site if it can be ANY of their offices? Isn't the point of being onsite something to do with teamwork and water cooler chats? I don't think you'll get that say in the corner of your Crawly office while half the team is in Glasgow and the other half is in crawley.

If that's the case, that they don't care from which office you work as long as you're in an office and not at home, the only reason is managers not trusting employees/contractors and thinking folks are skiving at home.

Recent example is lloyds banking group, now wanting everyone in the office at least 2 days a week and since employees (at least the ones I know based in Scotland) were starting to kick up a fuss, I've heard now LBG are opening up local offices and technology hubs in various places so if say you are based in Glasgow, you'll have an office there and won't have to travel to Edinburgh. What's the real benefit of this? None, but managers want to see bums on seats.

[sreed]

I hope it never does happen but for those that do want to work from home more than company policy I can see more and more monitoring tools come in. Where managers can't manage then technology will take over and that's not going to be fun for anyone

100%. This is going to be increasingly prevalent on all staff laptops in the coming years, especially among the more bureaucratic large cos where they like managing by spreadsheet.

Even prior to Covid, an American VC funded fintech startup that I did a stint at at had tools which gave ‘productivity scores’ and metrics to employees based on when they logged in, inactivity periods, time spent on websites, which websites, etc etc. They wanted to go further (random half hour audit recordings) but I think HR nixed that.

The pace of adoption will likely differ across countries - US companies being the pioneers with western European based cos. at the slower end. But the direction won’t change.

Even as someone that enthusiastically supports remote/hybrid work (both from the pov of an employer and employee), I’m ok with increased monitoring as it’ll help identify employees, work settings and roles that simply aren’t suited for home based working, and give employers more information to fine tune their policies and approach to what is a way of working that’s still in its infancy.

Good employers will use the data to identify gaps (eg: how two employees are delivering the same output while spending significantly different time on these tasks) and continuously improve while bad employers will use it to manage by spreadsheet.

But that kind of distinction (good vs bad management), presenteeism vs productivity, rewards for schmoozing vs output, managing by spreadsheet, etc. already existed pre Covid and will always do. It’ll just take a different form when the mechanics of work change.

[northernladuk]

I hope it never does happen but for those that do want to work from home more than company policy I can see more and more monitoring tools come in. Where managers can't manage then technology will take over and that's not going to be fun for anyone.

Didn't we already have a story of a solicitor that got sacked as productivity monitoring software on their PC caught them doing F all?

[northernladuk]

Wfh which was thrust upon us has opened people’s eyes …you don’t need to commute an hour and a half and sit in an office to do your job.
Then the same again to get home so 3 hours wasted time plus train fares etc.

For us on this forum and many professionals I would agree but for every 1 of those there will be a hundred that just wag it all day WFH and their productivity goes through the floor. As much as I despise management by Teams status it can be pretty glaring those who are yellow more often than not AND their productivity is clearly not the same as their peers. They think they are being smart, then get lackadaisical and then forget to put the effort in to look busy.

I’ve rarely come across good managers they don’t manage regardless if they see you sat in front of them or if you are sat at home.

But how many people are good managers, particularly when you start going down the pecking order and you have managers of admin level teams who are just the best of the people doing the work rather than proper managers. You are absolutely right on your points but only looking at it from our level. There are many many people that go to work to do the least possible and this is their way out. I mean, just look at the number of contractors that have the time to double bill their clients before and after WFH. Stark difference.
Those good managers often get a good team together as well. Not everyone has the ability to do that or the even the choice to be able to do it. Lazy people have to work somewhere for someone.

There is a shift but I don’t think it will ever go back to how it was pre covid…lots of people I know are still largely wfh or max 1 or 2 days in the office. Gone are the 5 days every week…

Agreed but I think it's going to increase a bit more before levelling out.

[northernladuk]

Pandemic forced remote working into true existence. I was working at fintech company in March 2020, even they had to desperately buy more licences for their remote software. I think they had enough for like 15% of the headcount previously. For a few weeks it was patchy as certain users had priority due to their roles and non-priority accounts would be disconnected to make way.

Oddly enough my PS client had already been testing full WFH plans just before covid and they started groups working from home for a week to test almost the minute covid news started. Got to give them credit they were well ahead of the curve. My last client was more like yours though, smashed teams out as fast as possible and still struggling when everyone was forced home. Still haven't recovered by the time I left earlier in the year. Trying to put O365 in properly once you've smashed it in and treating the whole probramme like an upgrade wasn't working well at all.

The post pandemic labour shortage is what forced hybrid, trying to get people in without them quitting. I know quite a few instances where people refused to come in at all (or very rarely) and straight out stated they would quit if they were forced to. So the managers backed down.

Must admit I don't see it like that at all. Hybrid was a natural evolution IMO. WFH was lifted but it wasn't working too badly and covid was/is still around remember so they grew gently aware more outbreaks and more return to homes might be on the horizon.
I don't get why they backed down, it's in the employees contract and WFH was in response to the pandemic. No employment tribunal is gonna back up an employee refusing to come in when working in the office in their contract and hybrid/return to work steps are in place. I can see it working in a few instants where people just want to cause trouble and I'll bet it's the same lot that will be straight for a tribunal when the don't get promotions/pay increases because of their WFH demands. But pandering to some like this is the thin edge of a difficult wedge. My last client also stupidly started recruiting fully remote people and now have a proper headache now they've a 2 day possibly increasing to 3 days in the office policy in place. Not fair on those that have to when others are totally remote. Proper mess IMO.

Now the leverage is returning to the companies they are going to force the issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...k-survey-finds
Considering these people run the show, what they think is pretty much what will happen.

Possibly but could be more location and client industry specific but will be interesting to see what happens. If they have to drag the drones in that clearly do as little as possible at home they are gonna have to drag everyone in.

I don't think 5 days will happen though, but I do think the average will be like 4.

Am thinking 3-4 is gonna be average with some clients doing 1 or 2 but some doing 5. There have always been good employers and workhouse employers.

We are never going to learn how to manage people who WFH the same way we don't manager people who work in the office. At best some managers manage by looking who is sitting at their desk akin to seeing who is 'online' on teams, beyond that? Very little idea what they are actually doing and how productive they are.

But that's where the learning is going to have to be. I'm sure there will be studies on it and more affective frameworks to use. It's different, not impossible so people will have to learn the new way of remote teams. Focus on output rather than assuming you'll get that from a bod 5 days in the same chair. Don't manage by Teams dot colour (my personal bugbear this one), effective goal setting rather than just being at a desk etc.

[Cookielove]

Wfh which was thrust upon us has opened people’s eyes …you don’t need to commute an hour and a half and sit in an office to do your job.

Then the same again to get home so 3 hours wasted time plus train fares etc.

I’ve rarely come across good managers they don’t manage regardless if they see you sat in front of them or if you are sat at home.

There is a shift but I don’t think it will ever go back to how it was pre covid…lots of people I know are still largely wfh or max 1 or 2 days in the office. Gone are the 5 days every week…

[JustKeepSwimming]

I thought it was because of a global pandemic? And now we are moving back to a hybrid approach where WFH is a solid option but people are still involved and they are hard to change. Until we re-learn how to work from home, to manage them and be professional enough to be fully productive it's going to be a long slow process to get back to any kind of normality.

Never gonna happen. It was a knee jerk to a global pandemic. Just can't seismically shift everything in the rush that hit so just consider any form of flexibility/hybrid as a benefit. If people are going to moan about no more WFH then they are going to be miserable forever more. People need to understand why we WFH'd and it wasn't to suit them.

It's not moving back though is it? Hybrid was never a common occurrence pre pandemic, beyond maybe the London lot doing 'WFH' on Fridays.

Pandemic forced remote working into true existence. I was working at fintech company in March 2020, even they had to desperately buy more licences for their remote software. I think they had enough for like 15% of the headcount previously. For a few weeks it was patchy as certain users had priority due to their roles and non-priority accounts would be disconnected to make way.

The post pandemic labour shortage is what forced hybrid, trying to get people in without them quitting. I know quite a few instances where people refused to come in at all (or very rarely) and straight out stated they would quit if they were forced to. So the managers backed down.

Now the leverage is returning to the companies they are going to force the issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...k-survey-finds

Nearly two-thirds of bosses believe that workers will return to the office five days a week within the next three years, while a majority of company leaders think pay and promotions could become linked to workplace attendance, according to a survey.

Considering these people run the show, what they think is pretty much what will happen.

I don't think 5 days will happen though, but I do think the average will be like 4.

We are never going to learn how to manage people who WFH the same way we don't manager people who work in the office. At best some managers manage by looking who is sitting at their desk akin to seeing who is 'online' on teams, beyond that? Very little idea what they are actually doing and how productive they are.

[northernladuk]

I agree that I think employers were forced into being more liberal with WFH than they would've wished due to labour shortages. I think we are now going to get into a 'greenwashing' phase where employers pretend to really support flexible working whilst secretly wanting and encouraging people to be in the office.

I thought it was because of a global pandemic? And now we are moving back to a hybrid approach where WFH is a solid option but people are still involved and they are hard to change. Until we re-learn how to work from home, to manage them and be professional enough to be fully productive it's going to be a long slow process to get back to any kind of normality.

I did naively think that WFH was going to become mainstream, mainly because profits increased despite it. I do think retail FS are likely to maintain a strong flexible working policy. The same way it has maintained 35 hour weeks despite the norm being 37.5-40, equally they have maintained things like pension contributions at 10%+ (although they closed final salary)

Never gonna happen. It was a knee jerk to a global pandemic. Just can't seismically shift everything in the rush that hit so just consider any form of flexibility/hybrid as a benefit. If people are going to moan about no more WFH then they are going to be miserable forever more. People need to understand why we WFH'd and it wasn't to suit them.

[David71]

Shortest contract I ever had was Thales.
was concurrent with another client who'd had a bit of slow down so I had no issue with running both at the same time - this was clearly stated / not hidden. Well outside IR35 re: location, office visits, working practises etc.

Turned up on day 1 to say hello, kick things off etc. and:

• here's you uniform POLO shirts
• this is your desk, you'll need to tidy the room before you leave in the evening

Day 2: here's your invoice for two days...bye.

Give them credit, they paid up. The agency told me they went absolute bat-tulip with them for wasting everyone's time.

[sreed]

[QUOTE=JustKeepSwimming;n4277222]
Number 2 I just assume JLR, have a mate who works there and desperate to leave because they are being forced into office more than originally planned (their issue is a biggish commute more than office time) + Indian ownership.
[QUOTE]

JLR/Tata won’t care.

For the jobs they can’t offshore to India for radically lower costs, they will have tons of cheaper Indian employees queuing up to work in the UK and 5 days/wk in the office. And under the current liberal work visa regime and the promise of ILR and a UK passport in 5 years, it’ll be a doddle to bring them over.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I can't name numbers 1 or 3. It would be bad for business. As for number 2, I'm sure you can make a good guess at or get one of our colleagues to give you the name. Number 1 actually does not have a name or full brand yet (it is coming) but it is currently funded.

I don't believe with the explosion of WFH with lockdown that it was ever to be a permanent thing. I don't believe the employers felt that way either.

Number 1 was what I was interested in tbh, just being nosey.

Number 2 I just assume JLR, have a mate who works there and desperate to leave because they are being forced into office more than originally planned (their issue is a biggish commute more than office time) + Indian ownership. Going from 1 to 3/4 days in effectively cancels out the pay increase they got compared to their lower grade local job. (plus I think you mentioned local knowledge of Warwickshire police...). For what it's worth I know someone who travel from Liverpool to 60 miles south of Coventry twice a week, as a permie!.

If number 1 doesn't have a brand/name that would to me suggest public sector? I know f all about Liverpool so no idea what it could be!

I agree that I think employers were forced into being more liberal with WFH than they would've wished due to labour shortages. I think we are now going to get into a 'greenwashing' phase where employers pretend to really support flexible working whilst secretly wanting and encouraging people to be in the office.

I did naively think that WFH was going to become mainstream, mainly because profits increased despite it. I do think retail FS are likely to maintain a strong flexible working policy. The same way it has maintained 35 hour weeks despite the norm being 37.5-40, equally they have maintained things like pension contributions at 10%+ (although they closed final salary)

[courtg9000]

Pfft, name them!

If the economy goes to pot next year, which i'm expecting, I can see many companies taking advantage and forcing people in more often.

By to pot I mean 2009 level media, near constant news of redundancies, bankruptcies etc. 2024 pay rises any bonuses will be none existent too.

I do wonder if any studies have been done on WFH. In the sense that economists claim that free movement of workers is great for the economy because it allows jobs to attract skilled workers. Like in the EU, if you're a high level mechanical engineer wanting to focus on F1, you're probably moving toward Silverstone where many of the teams are based.

Does the economy get a similar boost by allowing someone in Northern Ireland to work remotely for a company based in Birmingham? Or does any negatives outweigh any boost.

I guess it's a similar premise to IR35 (T&S).

I can't name numbers 1 or 3. It would be bad for business. As for number 2, I'm sure you can make a good guess at or get one of our colleagues to give you the name. Number 1 actually does not have a name or full brand yet (it is coming) but it is currently funded.

I don't believe with the explosion of WFH with lockdown that it was ever to be a permanent thing. I don't believe the employers felt that way either.